Tell it like it is, Mike!
There are two thankless jobs in the Wolves' organization. First and most obvious are the poor saps who have to sell tickets, especially the ones to the luxury boxes. We here at Hoopus have no idea how the ticket reps we come in contact with do it. We'd loose our cool by mid-afternoon on our first day...which is probably why we're no longer in sales.
Second, the Wolves' TV crew has to fill roughly 4 hours of airtime per game night. Think about that for a moment. When the Wolves start a game out going down by 10 with only about 5 minutes run off the clock, what are you going to talk about? How are you going to spend several hours describing a team that can be entirely defined by a haiku?
McHale's ghost still here
Out manned? Yes! Sasha Hollins!
Lower bowl upgrade.
You know what I'm talking about.
After watching hours of League Pass, I really have an appreciation for the Wolves' TV crew, commercial free halftimes, post-game tutorials, and the hours and hours and hours of material that J-Pete and Hanny come up with to describe the team we are starting to run out of ideas about with the written word. "They're not talented enough," "they have future assets," and "Kevin Love is really good" can only take a guy so far.
Anywho, my favorite TV moment of the year happened during the first half of last night's game. The TV crew is constantly trying to make a sometimes unwatchable product entertaining and to assure fans that at some point somewhere down the road, all of this...well, crap...will pay off for the long term benefit of the team. Like it or not, that's part of their job.
This little fact often leads them down the road of getting players and/or coaches from the other team to draw comparisons from their squad's questionable past to their current success. This angle is ridden hard when teams like Portland and Atlanta come to town.
Last night the Wolves' new sideline reporter (and Telly-slayer) Robby Incmikoski asked Atlanta coach Mike Woodson to wax poetic about the parallels he sees between this year's Wolves and a past version of his currently upper-level Eastern Conference Hawks. The answer went a little something like this: "I suppose they do remind me of what we were going through 6 years ago."
At this point several thoughts rushed through my head. First, I felt bad for Robby. That answer must have been the sideline reporting equivalent of getting shot in the face by Dick Cheney. He was clearly going for something inspirational and he ended up getting pointed to the second thought in my head: Mike Woodson just compared the 2009/10 Wolves to the 13-win Atlanta Hawk squad that was probably the worst team of the decade.
My third thought was "Who on god's green earth was on that putrid team and how on earth would any of them remind Coach Woodson of the Wolves?" This question is the fan equivalent of getting shot in the face by Dick Cheney. The 04/05 Hawks were led by Al Harrington and Antoine Walker. They had young wings Josh Childress and Josh Smith, as well as a young Boris Diaw. They also had Kenny Anderson, Tom Gugliotta, Jon Berry, and Kevin Willis. This is the team that reminds Mike Woodson of the 09/10 Wolves? Ouch.
OK, it's time to think a few happy thoughts before I get to the big downer.
Kevin Love is a fantastic basketball player. Last night he finished with 19 rebounds (8 offensive) and 15 points on .500 shooting. He carried an absurd 26.9 oReb rate for the game. He had a team-high 1.02 points contributed per possession used (the next closest teammate was Al Jefferson with 0.85). He filled in the action outside of the box scores with wonderful outlet passing, solid screens, as good of help defense as he could muster alongside Al Jefferson, and a few of his patented 1-on-4 impossible tips to teammates.
The best Love highlight of the night brings up an interesting question about the diminishing returns of defensive rebounding. Namely, is a defensive rebound in the hands of Kevin Love worth more than a defensive rebound in the hands of Al Jefferson or Ryan Hollins? The play in question was started with an Atlanta jump shot that was corralled by Love. The second the shot went off Corey Brewer started to drift towards half court. When he saw that Love had the rebound, he turned on the jets. Love pivoted and delivered a strike to an in-stride Ramon Sessions who took a few dribbles and delivered a perfect bounce pass to the cutting Brewer for a two hand dunk. If Ryan Hollins or Al Jefferson get that defensive rebound, what do you think are the chances for a Brewer dunk? How do you measure the impact of something like this? Are Love rebounds worth more than Jefferson rebounds?
Kevin Love is off to a tremendous start this season. He has extended his range, improved his rebounding, increased his assist and steal rates, lowered his defensive rating, and increased his offensive one. He's the best player on this team by a country mile.
| Season | Age | Tm | Lg | G | MP | PER | TS% | eFG% | ORB% | DRB% | TRB% | AST% | STL% | BLK% | TOV% | USG% | ORtg | DRtg | OWS | DWS | WS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008-09 | 20 | MIN | NBA | 81 | 2048 | 18.3 | .538 | .461 | 15.1 | 27.3 | 21.0 | 6.8 | 0.9 | 1.9 | 12.4 | 21.0 | 112 | 109 | 3.4 | 1.9 | 5.3 |
| 2009-10 | 21 | MIN | NBA | 11 | 341 | 23.4 | .584 | .530 | 16.1 | 30.0 | 22.9 | 11.6 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 11.6 | 19.7 | 121 | 105 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 1.4 |
| Career | NBA | 92 | 2389 | 19.1 | .544 | .471 | 15.2 | 27.7 | 21.3 | 7.5 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 12.3 | 20.8 | 114 | 108 | 4.4 | 2.3 | 6.7 |
Before we get around to what Love's improvement means for another very specific player on the team, let's take a moment or two to sing the praises of Corey Brewer.
At the end of the day it will be noted that Joe Johnson had 21 points on 9-18 shooting. It should be put into the record that Brewer made him work for each and every single one of those points while keeping him out of the paint and away from the line. Brewer fought through a maze of screens all night long and he showed an amazing ability to keep the smooth-scoring Johnson somewhat off-balance (as off-balance as you can get with 20+ points) with an array of long arms, oddly-timed jump-outs, and pure grit. Brewer is actually fun to watch on defense. He really thinks about it and his effort and thought is obvious. For instance, watch how he closes out on jump shooters. He tries to use his quickness to make the aforementioned oddly-timed jump out so as to distract the shooter as much as possible. It's distracting on the shot and it allows him to stay in better position to cut off drives to the hoop. He's also one of the best players I've seen in terms of being able to cut off a pass to the wing. 6'9" guys have no business being as quick as he is and he really uses that to his advantage with man-to-man defense. Now, if only he could turn into a solid weak side defender. My guess for this aspect of his game is that his man-to-man instincts kick in far too much when the ball is on the opposite side of the court and he sags away from his man far too much with the idea that he needs to help his awful defending interior teammates (cough...Al Jefferson...cough). He gets burned for a corner three on an almost nightly basis and last night's game was no exception.
One more thing about Brewer: He is turning into something of a showman in the open court. Between the Derek Fisher poster dunk and last night's 2-handed transition slam, Brewer is taking the ball to the rim HARD and it has led to some of the only non-Love entertaining moments in several recent games.
OK, now that we have the good stuff out of the way, let's get around to the elephant in the room: Al Jefferson.
Here is a comment that was dropped in last night's game thread:
I don't single out this comment because I think it's invalid; rather, it made me think about what Jefferson really brings to the club, especially in light of having the night kicked off with comparisons to the 13-win 04 Hawks squad.
The comment has an interesting point but it also begs a question going in the opposite direction: What else does Al Jefferson bring to the table that could be combined with solid shooting (and good) teammates? On a night when Big Al didn't have it going offensively, and on a night where the Wolves were getting torched in the paint early on, what does Jefferson bring to the table? My big Big Al memories of the night were a) watching him try and fight Kevin Love for defensive rebounds that were in no danger of going to an Atlanta player, b) getting a text from someone at the game saying he got into a tussle with Rambis in the 2nd half, and c) hearing a teammate yell "AL!" at him in a futile attempt to get the big fella to turn around and stop a Hawk with a clear path to the bucket.
Knee injury or no knee injury, what exactly will Jefferson bring to the table besides upper-level interior scoring? Let's say that the Wolves do get a solid supporting cast. Is he good enough beyond the low right block to be a functional defender? Can he facilitate the action out of the high post or on a pinch post screen? I don't disagree with the commenter that Jefferson will be an even better interior scorer if he were surrounded by better shooters, but what about the rest of his game?
Last night's tilt was the first time I really completely believed that he'll get moved at some point during the next 2 years. Last night's tilt was the fist time I really thought that there is no way this guy will ever "get it" beyond the low right block. This is in no way suggesting that he is not of value or that he is not a tremendous player. What he is is a flawed player who is being paid to be a building block. You can't build around a guy that is not a two way player. That should be a basic basketball principle. Knee injury or no knee injury, Al Jefferson is not a two way player. He's a scorer. He's the last person on earth you want to have as the lynch pin in a motion-based offense that is supposed to thrive on ball movement. He's the last person on earth you want to partner with in an undersized defensive front court.
I'm not at the point where I'll opine for a Shaddy/Foye-esque death match between Jefferson and Love but I am at the point where I no longer believe it can work and that one of them will go. I think it's obvious who I would side with if ever such a contest came down the pike, but I no longer see a good way of making this happen. Not with the coaching changes and the amount of assets they've sunk into the point guard position. It's gotten to the point where I mutter an "oh crap" when Al comes in the game for Love. This team is transitioning to a perimeter-based system and they will throw some money at someone like Rudy Gay and/or Joe Johnson while drafting another wing. Al Jefferson is the last Minnesota dinosaur at this point and he doesn't have much longer until the asteroid hits.
Let's wrap this up with a few bullet points:
- It is really frustrating to watch Wayne Ellington miss open shots. I know that he is dealing with the new role of being a bench player but he was never a high usage guy at UNC and I was hoping that his ability to hit open shots would transfer well to the NBA.
- The Hawks had 28 shots in the 1st quarter. That's insane. To give you an idea of just how insane that is, the Milwaukee Bucks lead the league with 87.2 FGA/game. At the half, the Hawks were on pace to have 122 FGAs in the game. Thankfully, they took their foot off the gas in the 2nd half. I wish I had the numbers for 2nd chance points. The Hawks were getting trips down the court with 3-4 shots/possession. It wasn't all just offensive rebounding. The Wolves were making ridiculous errors that gave the Hawks the ball right back after a missed shot.
- Ryan Hollins developed a new way to lose hold of a ball during last night's game. He was going up for a layup when the rock suddenly shot out of his hands.
- Lost in the shuffle last night was the fact that the Wolves took 11 more free throws than the Hawks...and that they missed all 11 of them. Ish.
Well, that about does it for now.
Until later.
lost this game at the line...and crawford can hit from the wing
0 recs |
160 comments
|
Comments
Knee injury or no knee injury
Al is only 10 months post-ACL reconstruction. I realize this is an opportune time to call for his head, but you need to have a little bit of objectivity, here. When he was healthy last year, he was a fairly dominant player. The Wolves were winning at a decent clip and Al was our best player. In that time of winning, Foye was our second-best player. Let’s not totally lose sight of that, even if it’s inconvenient to the larger point being made in every post these days.
That Hawks team is fun to watch. I won’t be shocked if they upset Orlando or Boston in the playoffs. Crawford adds some scoring punch off the bench. A couple years back, I thought Shaddy McCants could be that guy. Obviously I was wrong, there.
by Andy G on Dec 23, 2009 8:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Good points,
but that January winning streak was an aberration. Nothing before or after has led us to believe anything else. And I think this team is so unlikely to sign a well-paid FA, or trade picks/prospects/contracts for a very good well-paid FA, that by the time they add enough complimentary perimeter players, Al’s either going to be on the downside of his career, at the end of his contract, or both.
Nobody’s calling for Al’s head. But I just don’t think he is (or should be) a part of what this team seems to want to be say, three years from now. Keep in mind that he’s scheduled to make $54 million over the next four years. My guess is that now that we know what we know, the team would rather pay three younger raw players $5 mill per year, than give Jefferson $15 mill (which is about a third of what I think the team payroll will be in 2012-2013).
Plus, assuming rampant cost-cutting, lower revenues, and lower salaries for the foreseeable future, the Wolves are smarter to get rid of his contract now and take back smaller rookie contracts, if they can, rather than trying to peddle him in two years. And although his production will certainly be missed and should not be discounted, when the team is 3-26 at this time two years from now, I’m not going to look back longingly to the time when Al was here and they were 5-24.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 9:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Al trade timing...
As much as you don’t want to trade a guy when he is not 100% recovered from a major injury, I do think there is some urgency in doing something this season. PoorDick hits the nail on the head with the salary discussion. I feel like that “bargain” contract of Al’s is about to become the noose around the neck of any potential deal. Scoring specialists do not warrant near max deals, and the more time that elapses and the more the Wolves lose, the quicker the rest of the league realizes Al’s limitations.
by DougW on Dec 23, 2009 9:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It was an aberration...
in that we had the league’s best record in January. That was bizarre, given how awful we were with Wittman. But, clearly, if Jefferson didn’t tear his ACL we were a much-improved team and probably would have won 5-10 more games with him in the lineup down the stretch.
What’s easily forgotten, and I find myself forgetting it when I watch Al play poorly these days, is that he’s recovering from a serious knee injury and surgery. If Love tore his ACL and came back looking sluggish, I’m guessing there would be a lot more excuses being made for his play than there are for Al’s. Right or wrong, SnP and many others have been Love fans and apologists since his arrival in the Mayo Trade. So, I don’t think it’s from an objective voice that they bash Jefferson (as compared to Love) when he’s recovering from one of the most serious injuries in sports.
Put it this way, if healthy Jefferson were out there getting his 23/11/2/2, we would definitely be winning more games. Probably not a lot more — maybe 2-4 more games total. And there would be 2-4 more games that were close, instead of blowouts. That doesn’t sound like much, but it sort of is. It’s the difference between looking like a team on the rise and looking like a team in search of answers.
by Andy G on Dec 23, 2009 9:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry
your high level of intelligence and insight has been consistently demonstrated on this board over the years, but are you really going to stick with this assertion?
And there would be 2-4 more games that were close, instead of blowouts. That doesn’t sound like much, but it sort of is.
So . . . assuming this is true, we’d all feel a whole lot better if this team were say, 9-20 right now instead of 5-24? That the Wolves having the 4th worst record in the league, instead of the 2nd worst, would provide some hope? That instead of going to the Wild games religiously, watching the Vikings in a playoff run, attending Twins and Gophers football games in new stadiums (or more likely than all of the above, staying home and saving money), that people would be pouring into the Target Center and anchored to FSN game broadcasts like they were watching the American Idol finale?
I don’t see it. I don’t see this team improving with Al Jefferson (or being any worse without him), and would just as soon give three rookies spots on the roster instead of doling out $55 million to him over the next four seasons.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 10:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Regarding the 2-4 extra wins remark, I’m not sure what’s so bad about it. I don’t think Jefferson could carry this team (and this backcourt, more specifically) to a .500 record if he were healthy. But I think we’d consistently look more competitive. The Thunder had a terrible record last year, but everybody considered them an up and comer. Look at how that’s played out only one season later. Why is that comment so hard to digest?
by Andy G on Dec 23, 2009 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's because the Thunder ARE up and coming
Last year the Thunder’s best player couldn’t even drink legally. Al Jefferson on the other hand is at the age where Dave Berri says that players tend to peak:
NBA players peak at 24 years old and basically stay at that level until they turn 25, at which point they start declining, according to a study by Dave Berri, a professor of economics at Southern Utah University. Mr. Berri’s research, which examined every player from 1977-2008, says the statistical output of the average 24-year-old is equal in value to six wins per season for his team if he plays 35 minutes a night
2-4 extra wins and looking “competive” would do absolutely nothing to improve this team’s outlook or appeal. The team isn’t going to go after a top level perimeter player via trade or free agency now or next year—and I don’t think they should. With that in mind, moving Jefferson now for picks and prospects is smarter from both and economic and competitive standpoint.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wouldn’t doing that mess with Kahn’s three year plan though? I agree that 2-4 more wins wouldn’t make this years team any more competitive, but what about next years?
Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)
by frankenhoops on Dec 23, 2009 11:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think they thought
this team would be better than 5-24, and as Just A Fan has expressed more elequently elsewhere, it might be time to move on to Plan B or quite possibly C.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 11:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Who knows
I’ve never considered 24 to be a very old pro basketball player. I think Jefferson could realistically maintain a high level of play until age 32 or so, if not longer.
If he’s too old for us, then I guess we better deal him. Maybe Royce White can take his place next year. He’ll probably be available in the 2nd Round. Definitely young-enough to fit into this plan.
by Andy G on Dec 23, 2009 11:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, now you're just getting pissy (heh heh)
Al is a solution to this team’s problems way more so than the cause. But the current situation is getting worse, not improving. Jefferson’s skills and scoring make him the biggest asset on the team, but his contract is a monstrous liability for a team losing money and fans on a yearly basis. If you accept/believe that they aren’t going to add another highly-paid veteran, it doesn’t make any sense to keep him around for what he is guaranteed to be paid.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 12:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get why you think
we’re not going to add another highly-paid veteran. You might be right, I just don’t know where that’s coming from, given our plethora of cap space.
by TimAllen on Dec 23, 2009 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Players aren't paid in cap space.
They are paid in money. Which the Wolves are losing lots of. Take a look at some of the comments from people who have gone to games in the past few weeks. The next time you’re watching a home game, check out the number of empty seats at the Target Center, and then know that very few of those fans paid full price for the seats in which they’re sitting.
If they sign a highly-paid veteran, that is guaranteed money out the door, in a stagnant-at-best economy, in the face of a likely new CBA, for a largely fickle fan base that may or may not start showing up if the team starts winning more than 20-30 games per season. If it were your money, you wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) do it, either.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 1:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If that's the case
just save everyone time and shut the team down.
But I think that’s your “the sky is falling” opinion. Nothing from Kahn or Taylor has suggested that they won’t be players, in some sense, for free agents this summer.
by TimAllen on Dec 23, 2009 1:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, of course not
what are they going to say—“Dear season ticket holders, suite buyers, and advertisers: rather than throw good money after bad, we’re going to hold off on spending more money until it looks like we’re going to receive more money. Until then, please be patient, and thank you for renewing your contracts!”
I would LOVE to be proven wrong, and that the team will add Kevin Martin and Rudy Gay, and draft an athletic four, spending tons of money so that we can sit at our computers watching illicit streams of their ensuing victories. But until then, I’ll believe what I see and what I know: this team is a long way from competing, and right now it doesn’t make any sense to guarantee deeper financial losses for the chance at prospective wins.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Spending tons of money?
How much money do you think we’ve got to spend?
Even if we spend all of our cap spac, we’re still going to have a lower payroll than this year (over $61 million) right? The number will be whatever the cap will come in at plus the minum on guys needed to fill out the roster correct? That number has been projected anywhere from $50 to $57 million depending on league finances…so we’re going to be spending less next year even if we make a free agent splash and keep Al.
I’m not saying that I know Al and Love can coexist long term and if I had to pick one to trade it would likely be Al, but to trade him for financial reasons now is just stupid. If we’re at the point where we’re not even going to pay a roster the cap or near to it, we should just board up Target Center.
Almost everyone says that it takes the 2nd season post recovery before a person feels back to normal post ACL. Making decisions on Al now would be unwise. Moreover, Al’s contract would only overlap with Love’s potential extension by 1 year so even if we sign a max guy this offseason, we’re still not going to be in horrible financial straights in terms of paying several $10 million dollar contracts.
If the goal is cost containment, then I would argue that it’s the $2 million on Hollins and $5 million on Gomes that should look to be moved. What those guys do isn’t much above minimum replacement level. I’ll take quality over quantity now and if we need to move a healthy Al down the road that’s fine, but why now? Let’s play with our FA money (while still reducing payroll), draft a high lotto pick and turn some other smaller assets into a need and then see where we’re at.
by Blond Ricky on Dec 23, 2009 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Salary
Why do you think Al’s salary is so bad? He isn’t playing up to it this year, but by comparison there are guys like Michael Redd, Zach Randolph, and others that make $20 Million+ and have had poor seasons. If Al gets back to his old form, most people consider his deal to be reasonable, if not a bargain.
Is your basic point that since we’re not trying to contend, we should have zero players making more than rookie scale contracts? I’m not following your points about the money with Jefferson — he isn’t making that much of it, by NBA standards for players of his type.
by Andy G on Dec 23, 2009 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not that what he's paid now is so bad.
It’s that what he will be paid for a team that in no way has a shot at contending for the foreseeable future. Why give 30% of your salary to one guy who so far has you on pace to win 12 games?
Don’t base your thoughts on value on what’s happened in the past 5-10 years. Those days are gone for both the Wolves, and the NBA. Understand that many owners are begging for a lock-out just so they can temporariliy staunch the cash that’s bleeding from their coffers. Assume that players will be paid less, and the Wolves will be more concerned with saving money than winning games—especially until revenues increase.
I’d like to believe that the Wolves will spend money to increase wins, and ergo increase revenues. But as I pointed out above, there is no guaranteed that wins and revenues will follow a guaranteed increase in current and future payrolls.
So, yes, in a way, I am saying that I would rather that the Wolves have three guys on rookie contracts than have one Al Jefferson getting paid eight figures. It improves the odds that the Wolves could have two Al Jefferson-level players for two-thirds of the salary.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Slightly off topic...
but somewhat related is that NBA arenas have way too many terrible seats. I can’t believe that any teams sell out regular season games.
by Andy G on Dec 23, 2009 2:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Again…it’s going to be almost impossible to increase payroll next year if we don’t make some lopsided trades in terms of salary by the deadline.
So, yes, in a way, I am saying that I would rather that the Wolves have three guys on rookie contracts than have one Al Jefferson getting paid eight figures. It improves the odds that the Wolves could have two Al Jefferson-level players for two-thirds of the salary
How many rookie scale players are putting up numbers even comparable to the injured Al of present? Low post scoring is valuable and while I know Al has flaws, he’s a near all star level guy when healthy because of that skill…it’s that valuable.
It’s that what he will be paid for a team that in no way has a shot at contending for the foreseeable future. Why give 30% of your salary to one guy who so far has you on pace to win 12 games?
Well…because he’s a good player and has a contract on par with his worth. If Al was overpaid like say Zach Randolph, then sure, deal him away for rookie scale guys, but he’s got more worth than that. He doesn’t fit with Love, but he’s the only other guy on the roster with real value across the league (when healthy).
Like I said above, if the value is cost containment, dump some of the guys who have no real skill above replacement level. At worst, Al is a placeholder, a commodity if you will that we could move down the road when we’ve got more than the scaffolding in place on our rebuild. Do you think that Al’s worth won’t go up when healthy? At worst we’re looking at a swap for a guy with Kevin Martin talent when Al has his full trade value. Wouldn’t you want to wait and see what the makeup of the team is this summer before dealing Al?
by Blond Ricky on Dec 23, 2009 4:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you, Taylor is bleeding money with no end in sight, no way he’s gonna keep paying what he’s paying now. That’s the reason why Kahn aquired so many draft picks for this and the next year drafts. Rookies come cheap. The only chance for the Wolves to stay competitive is strike gold in the draft and/or trade Big Al for a young talented player and hope like hell he turns out into All-Star.
You forgot about Pecovic though. Rumors are that Panathinaikos (his greek club) will purchase a center this summer, cause Pec wants to go to the NBA. If he can provide 60-70% of Big Al’s production for 1/3 of a price, Jefferson becomes very available. With that in mind:
http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade.php?tradeid=5341350
Basically it’s Gallo for Big Al, Minny takes on Curry and Jeffries contracts (they both expire in 2011) for the chance with Gallo. New York will throw in some cash (3-4 million) to compencate Taylor for next season, get’s more cap space (Curry and Jeffries salaries > Jefferson’s) and an elite low post scorer. Minny gets young sharpshooting SF who can pass and has very high bball IQ – ideal for the triangle. Draft Evan Turner, some athletic SF and young C.
C – Pecovic/draftee/Curry/Hollins
PF – Love/Gomes/
SF – Gallo/Brewer/Jeffries/draftee
SG – Turner//Ellington
PG – Flynn/Sessions.
Then in 2011 Rubio comes over, Curry and Jeffries expire and voila Kahn can sign a free agent C (Noah, Perkins, Mark Gasol or Chandler).
by tanat-0s on Dec 25, 2009 8:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The ACL is absolutely a valid component of arguing for patience with Al's performance...
But equating fans and apologists doesn’t help it. In fact, I wouldn’t apologize for any of Love’s deficiencies. He’s a great rebounder, excellent passer, smart player who gets blocked often, isn’t athletic enough to be a great man defender and doesn’t look like his conditioning is where it should be. You either like or dislike what Love (or Al for that matter) brings to the table. They are what they are.
My argument for Love over Al (even when both are fully healthy, and at the peak of “what they are”) is that Love’s skillset is more diverse and a better fit for the team’s intended style than Al’s skillset.
Even if Al was getting 23/11/2/2 it wouldn’t change his defensive and passing deficiencies. Those existed pre-ACL injury. When the keys to your offense are transition and ball movement, a low-post ball-stopper (healthy or not) doesn’t appear to be a good fit. That’s the same reason I’m unconvinced that the team can be successful with both on the team. They seem to fit different offensive schemes.
www.canishoopus.com
by wyn on Dec 23, 2009 10:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good points
But your list of Love’s weaknesses is never posted in these game wraps. On the other hand, you’ll find Al Jefferson’s shortcomings posted in almost every single one. And the only mention of the ACL reconstruction surgery that happened less than a year ago is a quick remark like, “Knee injury or no knee injury,” as if it’s not affecting his play. That’s why I’m always trying to provide some fair and balanced coverage, since healthy Jefferson was damn-near an All-Star last year, and Love won’t be in the conversation during this fantastic season that he’s having. I think the ACL tear is pretty serious, and just because Corey Brewer’s freakish levels of adrenaline can seemingly overcome the injury faster than Al can, it doesn’t mean it’s not bothering him more than we know.
Clearly, Love has a more diverse skill set than Jefferson. He also has more diverse skills than most players in the league. But his weak areas, individual scoring and defense, are perhaps the two most important skills that a power forward can have. Granted, there are other ways to help a team, but Love isn’t going to initiate scoring opportunities at the rate of a Steve Nash — and how many guys other than Nash have become difference makers as passers? The list is short, and Love will never be on it. His rebounding is very impressive, but its impact on games is sometimes overstated. As TimAllen posts below, some of those are off his own misses.
Since we’ve traded KG, there have not been very many competitive games against good teams. Most of them that I remember involved Jefferson carrying us on his back, especially in the 4th Quarter. That might not be a perfect recipe for building a contender, but I think improving the backcourt talent, rather than overhauling the whole operation and building around a small power forward who can’t score on the block very well, is a better decision. Unless by trading Jefferson we can pair Love with LeBron, Kobe, or Durant, I don’t think we should let him go yet.
by Andy G on Dec 23, 2009 11:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
However!
Al Jefferson is paid three times what Kevin Love makes.
Follow the money . . .
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 11:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I also believe the Wolves should probably trade AL, but one thing
keeps haunting me. With AL gone, who scores inside? Al’s inside game will only look better when this team finally has a shooter. I really believe if they trade AL that in five years they will be looking for an inside, back to the basket scorer.
by Rumblebee on Dec 23, 2009 7:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No one. Without Al, you’re relegated to the scant few postups Love can give you per game..
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Dec 24, 2009 9:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Maybe they have to make a move by 2011 or 2012 (which is when they have to figure out a long-term deal for Love and Jefferson’s in the last year of his deal). But not now. When healthy, he gives this team a lot of bang for the buck and provides the only guy who can score against good defenders and double teams.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 23, 2009 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Love had a big hand
in that crappy opening 5 minutes – at least from my seat in the stands. Twice he failed to rotate to give a passing angle from the double team that resulted in Al and Brewer’s turnovers. He dragged his man into Flynn’s ill advised attempt at driving the middle (I would have liked Rambis to pull both Flynn and Love – he only pulled Flynn). And his lack of hustle back and cheap foul on the dunk did us no favors either.
I bring this up because I, too, agree that Love’s strengths are sometimes over emphasized. He still has quite a bit of work to do on his overall game to acheive his potential as a star. (not superstar)
by Just A Fan on Dec 23, 2009 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed...
…on the more work part but I’ll take it from a 21 year old big. He’s well beyond what should be expected from a player with his age and experience. He still has a lot of work to do but he’s building an insane resume already. Right now the Wolves lose just over 13 points/100 possessions when Love is off the court. It’s pretty much equal on both sides of the ball. Amazingly, the Wolves are almost a completely neutral team in terms of OE/DE when he is out there. It’s a 104.6/104.9 split right now. For a team that is worst in the league in terms of point differential, that is simply stunning. It’s even more stunning when you remember that we’re talking about a 21 year old guy who has started a grand total of 44 games. 44 games is all it took for him to be the best and most impactful player on this team.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 23, 2009 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I can't argue with a focus on upgrading the perimeter.
You’re right that above and beyond Al or Love, the problem is with 1,2,3.
Since SnP and I are admittedly pro-Love, we are by no means objective. That’s why thoughtful community members who disagree with both of us are so valuable.
Re: ‘important skills for a power forward,’ I think there’s no universal list. It’s all about the system. Amare, Haslem, Odom, Gasol/Bynum and Garnett are all valuable power forwards for quality teams, but I don’t see one particular skill that each has that makes them so valuable.
And surely, Love is no Nash, but again the system is different. Nash is probing to create, whereas Love desparately needs very smart cuts. He’ll recognize them every time, be able to get the ball there some of the time, but his (perimeter) teammates are making those cuts less than some of the time.
www.canishoopus.com
by wyn on Dec 24, 2009 12:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have absolutely no problem trading Al
I suggested it last year as a solution for those folks bemoaning the Love/Jefferson pairing. But, I think you have to look at Jefferson as more of an asset. The wolves are not short on young raw players, and will certainly add to that number in the coming years. But there remain 4 positions on the court where we are not sure we have the future starter in place for a winning team. Some (not me) would argue 5 positions on a champion. I don’t think you can afford to let Jefferson go without getting a starting center back, or at least 2 role players providing both some outside scoring pop and some interior defense that might look like a really good backup center in the future. I don’t think you give up Jefferson just for upside.
by dropstep on Dec 23, 2009 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hanny and J-Pete have it tough?
Somehow you just dropped over 2000 words on a blow out re-cap. Well done!
by gill0137 on Dec 23, 2009 9:51 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Rebounding
I’m glad that you SnP pointed out the Al/Love fight for defensive rebounds. I felt awkward just watching it.
What’s interesting is that Al Jefferson is considered a good rebounder, but you rarely see him actually “create rebounding opportunities”, which I would argue is a better indicator of rebounding acumen. Most of Jefferson’s rebounds are rebounds that any post player would get if in his position.
Here are my rankings of Wolves players in terms of “Creating Rebounding Opportunities”
1. Love (obviously)
2. Brewer
3. Wilkins
4. Sessions
5. Jefferson
37. random divits in the court
42. God
49. Ryan Hollins
by Blakeley on Dec 23, 2009 9:53 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
In regards to Al being a TERRIBLE two way player...
Isn’t that what some of us cough cough have been saying since we got him? Yep…
by College Wolf on Dec 23, 2009 10:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Meant to make that my own comment but oh well.
by College Wolf on Dec 23, 2009 10:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's okay, I accept your reply
Although I’m unable to verify the previous statement
by Blakeley on Dec 23, 2009 10:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Never was, Never will be
Al will be better next year once he’s had time to come back from the surgery. Better offensively.
But he was NEVER a good two-way player. We’ve known this for awhile now. And it doesn’t look like he ever will be. And yes, some of us have been saying that for a while.
Glad to see you coming toward the light, S-n-P. :)
by Django Z on Dec 23, 2009 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lets not forget
that at least half of Kevin Love’s first half offensive rebounds were from his own missed shots.
by TimAllen on Dec 23, 2009 10:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kind of an unfair statement...
Checked the play-by-play. 3 out of 8. I’m not arguing that it wasn’t “at least half,” as I assume you were guesstimating. I just don’t think that dismissing o-rebs off his own misses is very fair (especially when he finished .500).
by Bahlgren1 on Dec 23, 2009 11:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not dismissing them
but the poster above was dismissing a lot of Al’s rebounds because they were rebounds “he should have gotten”, whatever that means. I was just saying that the same microscope should be put to Love’s rebounding total.
by TimAllen on Dec 23, 2009 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just Checking
Is #42 God Shamgod?
Pining for a Troy Hudson/Marko Jaric backcourt.
by SBG on Dec 23, 2009 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No...
…Xray Hipp.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 23, 2009 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, sometimes Hollings creates opportunities. Granted, the ball is usually rebounding off his hands, or his head, or his back, but you didn’t specify!
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Dec 23, 2009 2:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Disturbing trend
I may be over-reacting to this, but it seems to me that we are becoming a Jefferson goes/Jefferson stays split, much like the Foye comments of years past. My question to all sides is: If Kahn called Jefferson a #2 player on a championship team and Love a #4, and we supposedly have a #1 type in Europe, why would you trade one of them until we can find out if it really will work? I understand Al doesn’t seem to work on defense, but will we be better off with Cole Aldrich in the middle? I’m just throwing this out there. I know Jefferson will never be shaq or howard on the defensive end of the game, but how many C’s are?
Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)
by frankenhoops on Dec 23, 2009 11:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
With Aldrich in the middle instead of Jefferson
we’ll have a less-productive player with more room for improvement, and pay $10 million less per year in salary, and still be not much worse than 5 and 24.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 11:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And when we finally stumble upon a superstar guard,
we’ll be this year’s Chicago Bulls!
by Andy G on Dec 23, 2009 11:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Who is Love on the Bulls? I certainly hope not Noah. Love is light years ahead with a baby hook and a very solid jumper all the way out to the 3 point line. Miller? Love is much more mobile, rebounds, and plays much better D than him.
by Jaughn on Dec 23, 2009 11:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Noah's one of the top defensive centers in the league...
I’m not saying he’s better than Love, but he’s not so much worse that the comparison is ludicrous. He’s mobile enough to guard on the perimeter, block shots, and rebound. I don’t know too many centers who could make the plays he made against the Celtics in last year’s playoffs.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 23, 2009 11:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it was David Thorpe who called Love
a better rebounding version of Brad Miller in one of his ESPN chats.
by TimAllen on Dec 23, 2009 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And how good was Brad Miller? Helping the Kings come close to dethroning the Lakers with Kobe and Shaq?
by Jaughn on Dec 23, 2009 1:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He was a two time All-Star and a quality player, yep.
by TimAllen on Dec 23, 2009 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But would anyone build a whole frontcourt around Brad Miller?
I mean, ultimately he was a support player to Chris Webber
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A. Chris Webber was a Vastly Superior player to Al Jefferson
B. Kevin Love projects to be a vastly superior rebounder to Brad Miller
C. The issue isn’t building a Front-Court around anyone. It’s about what Al Jefferson’s long-term value is to the Timberwolves. The reason he scores so much is because he shots alot. Here’s Dave Berri paralleling the Impact of Al’s Contribution
http://dberri.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/the-rockets-surprise/
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 23, 2009 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But if you trade Jefferson, then Love is the #1 guy in the frontcourt
So it is about who we’re building the frontcourt around
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know about others, but I’m not advocating that we “build” around Al. I just don’t think we should dump him without regard. He’s not as good as Webber for sure, but he’s what we’ve got right now and actually has some value because he’s a great low post scorer.
by Blond Ricky on Dec 23, 2009 4:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
That’s what I’m trying to say
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 4:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
3rded. There’s little to gain by selling low too early. We need to address the more pressing needs and worry about what to do with Al later.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Dec 24, 2009 9:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Remind me
where did the evidence come down in deciding bewteen “He scores a lot because he’s the only option” and “He would be even better if he had some help”? Not just for Jefferson, either, but I thought I saw something a while ago that seemed to answer that chicken-and-egg question.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 5:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Losing Really Affects Players
I think it affects their effort level, their offseason work habits to become better players, and it has affected the way they play their game.
I am starting to think that the only players that should be on the McHale era is Love and Brewer. Both are alway giving their highest effort. Brewer isn’t as good as I would like, but he will a useful 7th man that comes in, plays defense, and is solid in transition. Love only spent one year with McHale and clearly he has disdain for that time.
I still think Jefferson would be an ideal fit in OKC and I really, really love Harden, but we need a third team for expirings (cant take back Thomas this fiscal year) and I would like to get more than Harden back.
by Jaughn on Dec 23, 2009 11:38 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Disdain??
Love has come out numerous times saying he learned more from Mchale than any coach and him having to earn minutes his rookie year helped him. I never heard any player who played for Mchale say anything bad about him.
by Conned on Dec 23, 2009 11:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I should clarify better. I don’t want anyone on the team from McHale as the GM, not as the coach. And I am more referencing the ultimate loser in WIttman for the disdain. McHale is a pretty solid coach and infinitely knowledgeable, but I don’t think he had the work ethic to be the guy to bring us in the new era. Nor do I want to even think about the guy.
by Jaughn on Dec 23, 2009 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Proof of Wolves losing gads of money
Last night my friend and I paid $5 each to get into Target Center and we ended up sitting in the lower level in the fifth row. And it actually looked like a “decent” crowd last night.
It’s pretty sad…
by College Wolf on Dec 23, 2009 11:49 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Anyway, back to the game...
I went for the first time last night (and was punished for it by J Smith, one of the guys I wanted to see in person, being on the bench for most of the game), and above anything else, the impressions I came away with were that the Hawks’ athletic superiority gave the Wolves fits offensively and that the Hawks were able to keep the Wolves at arm’s length because two supporting guys had very good nights (Crawford and Bibby). They combined to hit twice as many 3s as they normally do (some of that because Flynn didn’t get a hand in their face) and shoot above 50%. Honestly, it’s too much of a broken record to focus on how this team stinks when it seemed like they faced a good team who had an unusually-good shooting night.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 23, 2009 11:51 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
To me, the Wolves losing boiled down to three things
1. Way too many turnovers. Atlanta jumped out to their big lead in the 1st quarter primarily on turnovers. If we don’t spot them 12 points in the first quarter, I think we stay competitive throughout.
2. Letting Jamal Crawford get open jumper after open jumper. The Hawks were 2 of 10 from 3 in the first half. At halftime, I knew they wouldn’t shoot 20% the whole game, since most of their 10 looks were open. And Crawford burned us badly with open threes (and a couple of twos).
3. Not making free throws. The Hawks shot pretty bad for the free throw line themselves, but Ramon Sessions new nickname should be “1 of 2”.
I’m not a big stats guy, but from just watching in the stands last night, that’s what I took away from the game.
by TimAllen on Dec 23, 2009 12:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Too many of those shots were open and the turnovers and missed FTs did them in to some extent. But JJ was hitting them with a hand in his face. I wanted to scream at Flynn for not challenging Bibby’s shots.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 25, 2009 10:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Long term, it HAS to be one or the other....
I can’t see either one of them coming off the bench but I suppose it’s possible. Love may be able to live with it ego-wise but not sure Al could. Games like last night just show the huge deficit we have on the font line in length and athleticism. Only a legit big like Bynum would allow us to do that. Not saying I want Bynum (would be nice), but a guy like that would provide a post with everything we’re lacking in there. Nobody I mean nobody is afraid to get into the lane on this team. Sometimes I wonder how we’d look if we’d have drafted Lopez instead of Love. But given the choice, I would like to hang onto Love and either trade Al at some point in the next year or 2, or at least somehow acquire (trade, free agency, draft) a legit big man and put either Love or Al on the bench.
by wolfen on Dec 23, 2009 12:32 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
You don't necessarily need to trade one of them
but the problem is you need a large, very aggressive, defensively oriented 5 to team with them. All 3 can play ~30 minutes a night in a mix and match arrangement.
In that scenario, Love and Al guard the 2nd and 3rd best offensive 4/5 on the opponents team. With some work (and at least on Al’s part – more effort) they can improve to the point of being competent defensively. In turn, that would allow guys like Gomes and Brewer to offer less help and stay closer to their player – making those uncontested perimeter shots a whole lot less frequent.
Unfortunately, those type of defensive 5’s don’t grow on trees. Maybe 1 guy per year – and it is not always so obvious who it will be. When we had the chance for Noah (early in his rookie year when Skiles was so down on him), I thought he was the right fit. Based on his performance this year, he would have been perfect.
If we can’t get that type of 5, then either Love or Al will have to go. There is not enough upside to their defensive potential to make up for their lack of size.
by Just A Fan on Dec 23, 2009 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree...
….with that last part. The problem I see is that I think Love will always work his way above Jefferson in terms of overall value and that is outside of the problem that would arise with paying Jefferson to be what would essentially amount to a scoring specialist. I don’t want to go back to the days of “wrong Gator” but…well, wrong Gator.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 23, 2009 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My special Jesus's Birthday Present to you
is to get a click surge like you wouldn’t believe by posting: Hey—wouldn’t this trade help both teams?
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
d'oh
it’s still not going
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 23, 2009 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I SHALL NOT BE DENIED!!!
All that money, ESPN, and you still can’t get that frickin’ trade machine to work. Okay, over to the renegades in their mother’s basement at RealGM:
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You really dislike Al don’t you? Al for 2 centers who are out for the year.
by Blond Ricky on Dec 23, 2009 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My First Instinct
is Portland would say no. If there was a chance of Oden getting healthy I would say YES in a Heartbeat. Although I’m unsure why Portland would give up Oden for Al under these circumstances.
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 23, 2009 4:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Uhhh . . .
. . . I’m just going to stand over
here, since you mentioned the players’ names that tend to attract the Zombies.
Portland probably should say, “no.” But they didn’t pay a gajillion dollars to Andre Miller so that they could maybe get to 45 wins this year. They are in a “win now” mode. Oden certainly could come back again next year and play as well as he was before he was injured. And then again, it may be years if ever before he’s at full strength.
and who knows—maybe they’ll be just as good without their two starting centers as they would have been with them healthy. The Dallas game was a good sign for them.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 4:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No such dislike whatsoever.
I just believe his age, pay, and particular skill set are not a fit for this particular team at this particular time, at this point in their development.
I enjoy watching and following this team more than most people (well most people who aren’t already fans of the Wolves), and I’ll continue to accept the team for what it is, rather than hoping for some Xmas miracle. But this season was lost before it started, and between injuries to Love and Gomes, it’s become progressively worse. That doesn’t mean we have to hang Kahn in effigy (or even hang him right here at Cheers), but we do have to accept that they have to win 2/3 of the rest of their games this year just to get to .500. There is no inkling that next year is going to be drastically different—so why not act accordingly?
Take him with a truckload of salt for his basketball analysis, but the author of the most popular basketball book ever written is thinking along these lines as well:
they have almost $23 million in expiring contracts to play with, but it would be crazy for them to add 2010-11 payroll when they aren’t going anywhere and have made it VERY clear that they don’t care for two years. Word on the street is that they won’t even discuss Rubio trades with other teams. That’s amazing. Look, there is no bigger Rubio fan than me. But he’s not a sure thing. This isn’t like waiting for Larry Bird to finish his 1978-79 Indiana State season … and even worse, it’s two seasons and potentially three. If you’re a floundering NBA doormat struggling to generate revenue, and you just spent the past 10 years proving to your fan base that they shouldn’t have faith in the decision-making for the team, can you really play the “Just Be Patient” card?
Being a Wolves fan is like sitting in an airport gate waiting for news on a delayed flight. Do you think we’ll take off today? Any word yet? Only it’s going to be like that for the next two years. At least.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 4:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There is no inkling that next year is going to be drastically different—so why not act accordingly?
Other than Kahn saying at his hiring that we were working on a 16 month timeline?
Rubio is a nice chip, but his availability is one of many avenues we have available to improve.
by Blond Ricky on Dec 23, 2009 4:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Very true.
But the avenues to improve will either cost money (trades and free agency), or time (draft picks).
I’m sure they’ll sign enough players to meet the “floor”—I’m not sure that the other players will translate to more wins or more revenue.
And if you accept that it will take time to get the Euros over here (if they ever come), or make and bake the draft picks, what’s the point of paying Al $12-15 million per year while the kids germinate, if you can increase your luck by putting some more kids on the floor as well?
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 4:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're a lot more concerned about the Wolves' finances...
…..than Glen Taylor is.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 4:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We'll see
Again, I hope I’m wrong, and every other optimist on this site is right. But very little of what’s happened recently has led me to believe that this team intends to spend more money than they have to, and I can’t really argue from a financial standpoint that they should.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 5:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i don't think he is
and i’m in full prep mode for no free agency money to be spent until 2011.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 23, 2009 5:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
except that we’ve got no chance of signing Durant.
by Blond Ricky on Dec 23, 2009 8:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right?
I’m not giving up. I love watching CoBrew develop this year. I LOVE Love. I realize that a recovering Al Jefferson is one of the five best scoring big men in the game, and “F*(k It! KEEP PLAYING!!” is a battle cry for the ages. So far, so good with Rambis. Flynn is not a disappointment, and quicker than advertised. I believe that Kahn will be quicker to pull the trigger than most GMs, when presented with a decent opportunity. I believe Glen Taylor loves the Wolves more than most owners love their own teams. I like how the front office people are making the most of a tough situation, and answering tough questions from both far-flung fans and paying customers.
But to think that the team is going to just spend money because we want them to, or because they have cap room, or because “GLEN’S A BILLIONAIRE” is to set one’s bad self up for disappointment. Cherish what you have, and hope for better days.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 5:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kahn can still trade for the right Gator. Love/Jefferson/Noah would be the best big man trio in the game. Imagine how well the Wolves would be able to control the glass with them. I just really want to find out much the league values Nikola Pekovic and whatelse we would have to throw in to be able to get Noah.
by Jaughn on Dec 23, 2009 4:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Love/Jefferson/Noah would be the best big man trio in the game?
Odom/Gasol/Bynum says “Hi.”
by John Doe on Dec 23, 2009 10:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fine. I was a little overzealous. They would be a top 2 or 3 big man trio, but Bynum needs to play more than 50 games in a season though to be in that category.
by Jaughn on Dec 24, 2009 1:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Or neither
We might ultimately be best off dealing them both
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 4:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Trade Love! Trade Jefferson!
Trade everyone!
(except Gomes)
by College Wolf on Dec 23, 2009 12:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
OK then
keep Love keep Jefferson. Accept mediocrity.
by wolfen on Dec 23, 2009 12:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't want to keep them both.
I don’t even like Al Jefferson at all…
by College Wolf on Dec 23, 2009 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I was being honest...
ANYONE on this team should be available for trade(s).
by College Wolf on Dec 23, 2009 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
gotcha
i thought you were being sarcastic ;-)
I agree. anyone is game for a trade on this team if it brings something in return. not sure why gomes wouldn’t be on your tradeable list though. he is the definition of what the wolves are. unathletic and occcasionally effective…..
by wolfen on Dec 23, 2009 12:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No worries.
Oh, and Gomes has been my favorite player in the entire league ever since his rookie season.
That’s why I want to keep him :-)
by College Wolf on Dec 23, 2009 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough
then let’s build this sucker around gomes! honestly though he could start and be a contributor on a playoff team that had some stars. i don’t care who we build it around, as long as construction is taking place so to speak. so sick and tired of choosing the wrong guy in the draft year after year. no need to re-hash all of them but you get my drift.
by wolfen on Dec 23, 2009 12:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
was shocked, last summer at season ticket meetings, to hear Kahn say he was planning to build around Flynn, who he claimed was a better defender, stronger Chris Paul. Kahn clearly stated that he would not build around AL. Wonder if he feels the same way today? It felt odd to many of us that Kahn was planning to build around a 5-10 guard who hadn’t played a game yet. Also claimed Ellington is a lights out shooter and Hollins a great rim protector.
by Conned on Dec 23, 2009 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Building a Team around Jonny Flynn
Would be silly. Flynn’s got skills- except he’s 6’0 feet and medicore at best running an Offense. This says nothing of his D.
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 23, 2009 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Part of me wonders if Kahn was just trying to build a market for Flynn. I know I am going to get shot for saying this, but Flynn might not turn out to be more than a really good sixth man.
by Jaughn on Dec 23, 2009 4:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One does wonder
He does seem very Leandro Barbosa-ish right now
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 4:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's my take on Love and Jefferson. It's like comparing...
….Lamar Odom and Amare Stoudemire.
Lamar does a lot of stuff better than Amare. He’s a better rebounder, a better facilitator, a better defender….probably a better teammate. In reality, all Amare does better is score.
BUT if you were to ask any team who they’d build a frontcourt around, I bet every single GM in the league will say Stoudemire. The ability to generate a high level of scoring is a very valuable skill, and I just don’t see that in Love.
I think that, if anything, Memphis shows you CAN win basketball games with an Al Jefferson type. As always, it depends on the players you put around him. If we get a franchise wing player, Al will be fine.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 4:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
And…if it becomes obvious that Al doesn’t fit, he can be traded later when we know what holes we’ve gotten filled in an upcoming period for heavy activity (trade deadline(?), draft and freeagency).
by Blond Ricky on Dec 23, 2009 4:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Like S-n-P said last week, getting a great wing scorer is by far the first priority
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah..
Pretty interesting. Last week we went from being Rudy Gay away from being .500. Now, we’ve got a few more years in purgatory (ready to dump Al) despite the fact that we could add a Rudy Gay type this offseason AND have up to 3 picks and Pekovic. It would be one thing to dump Al if we needed to do so to improve, but we’ve got some many other avenues to improve the team significantly (if you believe we’re 1 Rudy Gay away from .500).
by Blond Ricky on Dec 23, 2009 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So paying Rudy Gay
automatically costs the team $10 million per year, right? If that gets them to .500 (no assurances), does that mean more butts in the seats? I don’t think so.
This is a super oversimplified equation that leaves out a lot of important factors, but $10 million per year divided by 41 home games divided by an optimistic $30 per head of extra revenue is 8,000 freaking people PER GAME!!!
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 4:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
1) We average 14,000 in attendence right now. 8,000 more would put us at 22,000….IE the highest in the league. And also 4,000 over the Target Center’s capacity.
2) No team ever ever ever sells enough tickets to pay for its roster. Not even close.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 4:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"We average 14,000 in attendence right now"
Uhhh—do they all sit up in the darkened corners of the place? Because there seems to be thousands of empty seats at every game I’ve ever seen or been to in the last five years.
And I’m guessing that although there might be 14,000 tickets sold or given away, revenue is down substantially over last year, which was down the previous year, etc.
But that’s not my point. I’m just saying that for the team to spend $10 mill. on a free agent, they need to have some likelihood of getting most of their money back.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 4:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Official NBA attendance report
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance
Argue with ESPN if you disagree
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 5:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that's "announced" attendance
and I believe that somewhere 14,000-some tickets have been printed and distributed for each game. Again, I’m guessing the average revenue per night isn’t even close to what it was 3-4 years ago.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 5:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But again, few teams gate more than they spend on the roster
I think the Lakers were the only team that did that last year. Even really good teams struggle to break even on it. I think the Magic spent almost twice on the roster what they sold in tickets last season.
Plus you add in operating expenses, etc….I mean, like we mentioned last week, owners really don’t make profits off their teams until they sell.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 5:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay--I understand you.
I’m not saying that they don’t average 14,000 tickets printed, or that they expect to “break even” from ticket sales. What I’m saying is that $10 million is a lot of additional money to spend when the trends that we can see aren’t exactly heading in the right direction, and the ones we can’t (hint: it’s revenue) are probably in an even bigger decline.
I think they hope that the KG situation happens all over again: they luck out on a draft pick or cheap free agent who turns out to be transcendant. If/when that happens and the buzz comes back, they’ll strongly consider making a run by adding Spree and Sam type players. I think they feel that Rubio is their best shot at that type of guy, but we won’t know for a few years if that’s the case.
In the meantime, Love and Jefferson are good players, but they’re not KG.
by PoorDick on Dec 23, 2009 5:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely not KG
I’d kill to have a player that would facilitate the offense and anchor the defense the way he did.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 5:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If the Wolves average more than 8000 per game
I’m the Easter Bunny.
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 23, 2009 5:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
wait....
Yes, a suddenly competitive .500 team built around good young players absolutely puts more butts in the seats. And the $10M is not incremental…we’d be flipping the likes of Cardinal and Blount for Gay. Sure it is a multi-year commitment, but the guy is what, 23, oozes athleticism and fills a desperate need.
For that matter, why do some feel that Gay is absolutely not worth $10M, but Al Jefferson is a bargain at $12M….is the gap really that large?
by DougW on Dec 23, 2009 4:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
this comparison is flawed at best. odom is not nearly the rebounder that love is. al is not nearly the scorer amare is. ignoring those facts is silly. ignoring that odom is older than amare is silly. al is obviously a better rebounder than amare by miles, but really, this comparison makes almost no sense to me.
you build around the young guy who rebounds better, scores more efficiently, has two working knees and a desire to play defense. no contest.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 23, 2009 5:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The comparison is...
….that Odom (Love) does more of everything except score than Amare (Jefferson).
Getting into super-specifics is like trying to figure out if Kobe is better than LeBron. Zero-sum argument.
I understand how Odom and Love aren’t the same players, etc etc, but I’m just speaking broadly. One does a broad range of things, the other does one thing extremely well.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 5:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
if that’s what you were going for, the choice of odom vs. amare is very misleading and completely ignores the specifics of the love vs. jefferson discussion.
love does one thing extremely well: rebounding. it, coincidentally, is the same thing that jefferson does extremely well and he does it better. there’s only one thing that jefferson does better than love: volume scoring. that hardly negates love’s considerable advantages over jefferson at almost every other facet of the game.
and you don’t need to go into super specifics to figure out who’s better between kobe and lebron. it’s lebron and i’m not even sure what the pro-kobe argument is at this point.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 23, 2009 5:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Championships?
At any rate, it’s still a similar argument. If you take a look, the difference between Amare’s rebounding and Odom’s rebounding is actually greater than the difference between Love and Jefferson. Likewise, Odom is better than Stoudemire at everything except scoring. And Amare’s not even scoring that much this year either….19.8ppg.
Even if you get into specifics, it’s still a very similar comparison.
You could also think of it this way, if age is a big factor….who would you rather build a frontcourt around: Amare Stoudemire or David Lee?
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 5:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
amare might be the best pure scorer in all of basketball. that makes a pretty big difference in terms of how much versitility you are willing to sacrifice for that one skill.
al jefferson is nowhere near amare’s class of scorer. PPG tell almost nothing of the story for how great a scorer amare is. he puts up an amazing TS% while scoring in bunches. al does not. al is a volume scorer. he scores his points at an average clip for efficiency when he’s playing his best basketball. most years, he does not.
kevin love will continue to improve as a scorer and considering that he’s already more efficient than jefferson, i have no reason to doubt that he’ll be the better scorer fairly soon. al can keep putting up an empty 20 PPG with mediocre efficiency, but i’ll take the 17PPG at greater efficiency from love along with the extra rebound or two, the desire to play defense, the healthy knees and ability to pass. no contest.
and let me rephrase the kobe/lebron point: i’m not even sure what the pro-kobe argument is unless you give him an incredibly large amount of bonus points for having the far superior supporting cast. lebron’s the better scorer, rebounder, defender and passer. kobe does however have a substantial edge in “getting to play with pau gasol” averaging a nearly 1.0 pau per game edge over lebron. i guess that changes everything.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 23, 2009 5:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Eh....TS% to me is a fool's gold stat...
2 points is 2 points…that’s how I see it. You don’t get wins because your TS% would theoretically give you a better scoring efficiency rate. You either score the points or you don’t.
But you could also sub in Zach Randolph for Amare and still have the same argument. I don’t think many, if any, GMs would anchor their frontcourt with Odom or Lee as opposed to Zach either.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 5:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
at this point, i think it’s clear that we are going to be speaking totally different languages in terms of evaluating players. zach randolph? efficiency is meaningless? we should just walk away from this discussion before both of us start banging our heads against walls.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 23, 2009 6:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey man, check out what Randolph is doing this year. 23 points, 14 rebounds this month. Even his attitude is rosey.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 6:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he’s also having a career year. don’t expect him to keep it up.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 23, 2009 6:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I do. Memphis is a very ideal situation, at least for him individually.
But I mean, he’s been one of the best low post scorers for a long long time. He and Jefferson are almost identical, except Al doesn’t have Zach’s history of off court problems.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 6:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He and Jefferson are almost identical, except Al doesn’t have Zach’s history of off court problems
if this is the argument for keeping al jefferson…
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 23, 2009 6:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Like S-n-P said, Love is a player that plays in the gaps. No Jefferson, no gaps.
You have to have a guy that can be a go-to scoring force. Lee isn’t, Odom isn’t, and Love isn’t. Jefferson and Randolph are.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 6:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
jefferson and randolph should not be go to guys. they are offensive blackholes who don’t score efficiently. sorry to keep bringing up scoring efficiency, but it does matter. a lot. and when you add in the fact that neither shows any interest in defense, you’ve got problems. overvaluing volume scoring is a good way to make a bad team.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 23, 2009 6:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Building a frontcourt around a player that doesn’t command a double team is a good way to make a bad team too.
Even Kobe, LeBron and Wade can’t make that team structure work.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 6:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd love to see Al play with a Kobe or Wade
When we matched up with LAL at Target Center in ‘08, Al outplayed Gasol. It was just one game, but everything looked easier for Al than it did for Pau. Granted LA won by about 30 because they tended to have matchup advantages everywhere else and the best player in the universe, but that matchup was owned by Jefferson. It made me think how LA would do if they had our big man instead. Sure didn’t seem like they’d lose much. But I’m sure there are some advanced stats to tell me I’m way wrong on this point.
by Andy G on Dec 23, 2009 6:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the post anchors on championship teams score efficiently and know how to pass. huge chasm between pau gasol, tim duncan, rasheed wallace, shaq, etc and al jefferson/zach randolph.
and MJ seemed to fair just fine without a post player that demanded a double team. get great players, win championships. that’s the motto. not “make sure you have a post guy who demands the ball, doesn’t score efficiently, defend or pass”.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 23, 2009 6:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Jordan WAS Chicago's post player
And he’s Michael Jordan. I mean c’mon…the man is the best ever for a reason.
Every championship team needs a player that can be a major scoring threat in the post. If you look at the teams that have one rings, it’s not a complicated formula. At least one great post player, at least one great wing player.
I mean, people are already completely dismissing Jefferson when we haven’t even tried to pair him with a great wing player.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 6:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And now that I think about it...
….Wolves fans did the same thing with Garnett. All he has is a turnaround fadeaway, he’s not efficient enough, he’s not really a go-to scorer.
But pair him with Sprewell, we go to the WCF. Pair him with Pierce, he wins a championship.
Go figure.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 6:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
KG plays defense and passes. and scores much more efficiently than al.
i’m not saying you don’t need post scoring. i’m saying that al isn’t a good enough post scorer to make up for his numerous faults.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 23, 2009 6:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He didn't score more efficiently when he was here
All things considered, Jefferson is much more of a scoring force than Garnett.
Point being though, that the same things were said about KG, when it turns out KG was never the problem.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 6:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
was anyone honestly saying KG can’t defend anyone and is a bad passer?
don’t throw out that weak of a strawman.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 23, 2009 6:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We’re talking about being a go-to player. If all it takes is passing and defense, then teams would build around Marcus Camby.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 6:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and if all it took was volume scoring, teams would build around zach randolph.
complete players are who you build around, not one dimensional scorers.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 23, 2009 6:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Huge difference you point out
Al is an unathletic, short post player that can score and rebound at a very high level. KG is the best defender in the NBA, is a faaaar superior passer to Jefferson, was arguably the best rebounder in the NBA, and still managed to score 20 points a night. Al rebounds and scores, offering little else while killing ball movement. This would still happen with better teammates, even if his efficiency picked up. That’s not acceptable.
What Oceanary and others are saying about Al is correct when they say he’ll be better with better teammates and full health. SNP’s point is that he will never be a strong enough defender, passer, or anything other than a rebounder/post scorer to be worth what we’re giving him, especially with this roster.
by nja700 on Dec 23, 2009 6:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What I'm saying is...
….if we dump Al and try to build the frontcourt around Love, we’re going to get killed. That’s the ultimate argument I’m making.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 6:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the wolves are already being killed. at some point, i think it’s fair to look at a supposed “star” who has never played for a winner and say “maybe they’re part of the problem.”
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 23, 2009 6:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not saying Al is going to suddenly start carrying us.
Just saying I think asking Love to try and carry us would be even worse.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 6:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
but you wouldn’t have to make love sit in the post and try to force up shots. you could actually move the ball around, like the rockets do. they aren’t a great team because they lack that great player to carry them over the top, but they move the ball, score efficiently and defend. that’s why they’re a pretty good team. that’s why they’re better than teams that toss the ball into a zach randolph type and say “go to work.”
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 23, 2009 6:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Also..
….one would think Jefferson would score a lot more efficiently if he had a team that could keep double teams off of him. Yes?
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 6:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he had pierce. he didn’t score efficiently.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 23, 2009 6:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He was right out of high school and playing less than 20 minutes a game. And the Celtics were one of the worst teams in the league that year.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 6:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
to bring up gasol again, gasol was efficient in memphis and barely saw a bump when he moved to LA to play with kobe. guys who know how to score efficiently do. al doesn’t.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 23, 2009 6:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No game thread?
I want to discuss this volume scoring that Al is doing:)
by Andy G on Dec 23, 2009 6:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Has there ever been
a game where the 2 teams combined records were 7-50 in NBA history? Welcome to Nets vs Wolves. Can anyone say Toilet Bowl of basketball.
by Conned on Dec 23, 2009 4:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
At least 5 of those wins are ours
That’s something at least. We’ve cleared enough margin to not be considered _quite_as bad as New Jersey.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 4:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bleh what a crappy game. They embodied what we were missing. Athletic, high flying wingmen .. and players that are clicking on d as much as on offense.
Was so annoyed by the hawks’ annoucers though … on the other hand, I can understand if you’re at the bottom of the league for a while and finally start to climb up .. you do wanna enjoy it apparantly
Official Kahn/Rambis band-wagon rider since 2009
by Wim (Belgium) on Dec 23, 2009 5:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The Hawks announcers have been riding Josh Smith's jock for a couple years now
I remember they used to have debates and flame Mike Woodson when Woodson and Smoove were feuding.
They were extra-touchy last night because of Smith’s foul trouble.
by Oceanary on Dec 23, 2009 5:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To answer SNP's question
Defensive rebounds in the hands of Love are far better than AL. This will be the case even more so as the team gets more fast break scorers.
I enjoy watching Brewer attack the hoop. Keep it up Corey. Just stop shooting threes, please. Attacking the hoop and finding two or three spots on the floor that he makes jumpers will turn him into a 12 point per game defensive asset.
by Rumblebee on Dec 23, 2009 7:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Lots of interesting points in this debate...
In the interests of full disclosure, I am in the “keep Kevin Love” camp. His rebounding, passing skills (that Love-to-Sessions-to-Brewer play the other night was my favorite moment of the season so far), shooting touch and hustle to me outweigh his deficiencies.
Jefferson is very talented as well. I just have issues with his lack of interest in defense and that he often becomes a play-stopper (I understand the lack of talent around him, but it seems like he often slips into a “I’m getting mine” mode. Maybe it’s just me).
Having said that, I think we ought to keep both through this season. Let Al get healthy, make a few small deals at the deadline (Cardinal’s EC, Gomes, etc.) and find out what our draft position is. Then, DK and the staff can better evaluate the roster and style we want to play and make their moves.
by SoDakHmr on Dec 23, 2009 9:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

by 
















